With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation's armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.

Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.

Throughout the entirety of this debate I've had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I'm especially sure that President Obama wouldn't push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.

1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?

If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited "thing" for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don't engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don't, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?

2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn't go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the "sissy" out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.

3. Will base commanders be required to host "pride" events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation's cities each year?

There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any "pride" event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.

4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?

It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?

There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.

For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, "every other nation on the planet already does it," shut up!

None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.

In the hundreds of conversations I've had with those that serve in our nation's armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.

I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.

But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.

It was President Obama's doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.

I served 20 years and retired from the Army. Never had a problem with gays personally, and thought most were competent team players that I found out about. However, there were several very quiet court martial's of prominent gays (high ranking individuals) who used their rank and power to rape lower ranking individuals under their supervision. The worst case was for 27 counts and involved his wife suducing unsuspect drunk guys while the perp went out to obstensively buy more alcohol during football games. In all cases these people were predators, in the sexual sense and enjoyed rape or a form of professional blackmail where one feared damage to their career as motival for keeping quiet. The fear of showering or consentual sex is not what people dislike - it is the rather overt nature, the strong sexual orientation whreby sex is the primarly focus of one's being that worries most folks who have to deal with gays.

Here in the State Department, gays have a perch from which they are untouchable. Once they have tenure they can be incompetent and still use complaints and character assination of people they don't like through EEO. The problems they create are one of fear in the ranks by straights where we dare not cross them - for they are militant, petty and mean when angered and use all form of weapons, e.g., rumors and EEO. Again at State our expierence is different, we have people who walk about like Hollywood Hair Dressers, flaunting their sexuality, mocking the normal sense of sivility that would be considered professional non-sexual conduct; they can do this specifically because we make an exception. We avoid confrontations, and tip toe in the closeted sense around gays trying not to offend them (being a Republican is an offense in the political correctness sense here in the Department and being an R indicates you are against Gays in liberal circles).

But there is one bigger problem is one in which the State Department has fostered a situaiton where they have a category of family member called Member of Household (MOH). An example of the MOH benefits can be drawn from the fact we have here at State Department Post an openly homosexual junior foreign service officer living with a Brazilian male; the office is shortly going to deploy to a combat zone and during his one-year absence (prior to gong to his follow-on assignment), his MOH boyfriend will continue to live in government leased housing (about $130K a year), be entitled to employment as any other family member, etc. Straight orientated foreign service officers are not giveng these "rights" for hetro different sex boyfriends or girlfriends, and I think this another form of charity the Country cannot afford. While my wife is friend's with this MOH as he is literally one of the girls and a likeable person, it is the financial angle to which most object - where is the line item funding for this from the Congress and Senate (or is this another unfunded obligation?).

My objection to gays openly service can be initially touched upon in the paragraph above, but there one other area that concerns me as well. That is the consideration that we have an Islamic block at the UN or within the world about 67-69 nations in one religous group where being openly gay is a crime in their nations and we send Openly Gay Diplomats (in the future Gay Military personnel). Do these nations and the adherents of Islam see the West and America once more as a decadent perverse society that by our very essence seeks to offend the pure? If we cannot deal with very question within our government and society, have we the right to export our morality or lack there of, into other societys? I do not see this as sending a Black Mayor from Atlanta (Andrew Young) to an Apathid South Africa for we were allied with a Deklerk Government, but rather in just this one instance of Islam at a stage of religious intollerence by those so inclined. So based on this one situation alone I beleive it is within the rights of Nations to reject our diplomate/politicians and military from interaction with their society's on the basis of religious and legal grounds. Were these nations to arrest and/or expulse from their country's openly gay diplomats, or refuse military assistance it would make our diplomacy and protective umbrella unable to deal with today's negotiations or tensions.

I could go on but one can get the sense there is more to this issue lurking below the surface.

I am curious where many FISCAL conservative's stand on the Entitlements the State Department is throwing money at to allow FSOs to have lovers live in hosing they are not occupying, or the fact that gays can now compete against wifes/husbands and they do complian through EEO when their lovers are not hired as the best qualified.....

It is my belief that we can ill afford the "trail by fire" in the diplomatic arena and we definitely cannot afford the "unfunded obligations" Hillary has imposed at the Department of State NATION-WIDE.

It's going to be hard to deal with the disciplinary issues. We're talking young people in their late teens and twenties, who already think with their glands too often.

This is going to be 1) more of an impact than the Obama Administration thinks it will, but 2) less than a total disaster, because the military will, out of sheer desperation, find ways to punish sexual harassment and intimidation — but only if they are reported.

Very good point. One thing the gay blades don't want to discuss is how you can differentiate between psyo-sociopathic sexual sadists such as the crowd at Abu Ghraib and your ordinary, run of the mill homosexual.

Just can't get those guys to deal with it ~ and most likely because ALL of them know it's not possible ~ because they've all been beat up by such folks, or had a friend beaten.

Now that our military has "embraced" gays and transgenders, military medical care can look forward to the trangender precedents established in prison medical care . In fact will it not be even easier for by radical left lawyers & their cohort judges & politicians to force trangender nedical care down the throat of the military than it was to do so for the prisons?

This means the military will be paying for trangendering soldiers hormone theurapy and even surgical modification.

And unlike prison - where few would intentionally be incarcerated so that the public can pay for this cost - many trangenderers will join the military just to have this paid for.

The fear of showering or consentual sex is not what people dislike - it is the rather overt nature, the strong sexual orientation whereby sex is the primarly focus of one's being that worries most folks who have to deal with gays.

Good point, needs to be emphasized.

What you are describing at State is the overhauling of the Government, department by department, by a homosexual political cabal. I'm sure there are underground writings and gloatings about these petty, dark little triumphs by the perpetrators.

These kinds of political "movements" tend to end badly when the conspirators run out of rope. Then comes society's strike back, and a settling of accounts.

Oh but congress has told us a number of times that if Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment were facing Court Martial today it would not get even inquiry. We are -it seems no longer a Moral and Religious people.At least that is the America Congress sees.

They have created another class of soldier who “must” be promoted and “can't” be disciplined. It was rampant in the 70’s with minorities. You CANNOT hide the truth from your troops and if you try you will pay the price, with interest.

56
posted on 12/19/2010 4:19:55 AM PST
by Feckless
(I was trained by the US Government to Kill Commies. Now ain't that irOnic?)

It is part of Odumbo’s Master Plan - Weaken the US - What do you expect from a communist sympathizer. He paid big money for the Reid’s, Pelosi’s,(election), Brown (Rhino), Collins, (rhino), Snowe(Rhino) votes. he made more promises to Brown, Collins and snowe. Where do you think the 13 trillion dollars that is missing is going for it is Obama’s Stash of cash to buy votes and buy politicians.

Brown from Massachusetts stated he would vote with the Dumbocrats. What do you expect from a guy whom possed for a magazine? He is a POS.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.